2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This theoretical paper proposes a framework to understand LGBTQ participation in STEM that reveals how heterosexism and cissexism operate in engineering. LGBTQ people are more likely to leave engineering majors and occupations than their peers as they navigate a hostile climate. However, identifying as LGBTQ should not be a barrier to participation in engineering, and the engineering workforce benefits from diverse involvement. We propose a framework that connects the low representation of LGBTQ students in engineering to experiences of inauthenticity that threatens their participation in engineering and motivation to persist in their studies. This framework then leads to new hypotheses to drive forward the research agenda on diversity and equity in engineering education, as well as other fields, along new paths.
In short, LGBTQ students’ networks in engineering are heterophilous in terms of sexual and gender diversity, which inhibits meeting their need for authenticity within these constructed spaces. First, most peoples’ social networks within engineering tend to be homophilous in terms of gender and sexual identity. A concept from social network theory, homophily is a term to describe how much one's social network is composed of people who are like oneself. For heterosexual and cisgender students in engineering, most (if not all at times) of the peers they encounter in their majors are also heterosexual and cisgender, which informs the notion that these identities are not relevant to engineering practice. The engineering environment coheres with their personal experiences, which affords them a greater sense of authenticity within engineering.
On the other hand, because of low sexual and gender diversity within engineering, LGBTQ students are less likely to access this sense of authenticity within engineering. The State Authenticity as Fit to Environment model argues that authenticity is an essential human need experienced as a psychological state that can be induced in environments that are congruent with one’s sense of identity. Experiencing state authenticity increases motivation and engagement within that environment; experiencing inauthenticity does the opposite. Heterosexual, cisgender students experience authenticity within engineering with little question, whereas LGBTQ students are more likely to experience inauthenticity which interferes with their participation in engineering fields.
If attention to state in/authenticity is overlooked as a critical aspect of engineering learning environments, these environments remain demotivating and disengaging for minoritized students like LGBTQ students who wish to pursue these fields of study. One promising direction for research then to better understand LGBTQ participation in engineering is social network analysis, which could help unpack the relationship between the composition of engineering students’ social networks, their experiences of in/authenticity, and different educational and vocational outcomes in engineering. Social network analysis may also offer insight into how students organize their networks into environments where they are more likely to experience state authenticity. Implications for practice include helping LGBTQ students find community in engineering and other STEM fields through organizations like Out to Innovate and oSTEM.